Establishment of hybrid Poplar on a Reclaimed Mine site in West Virginia

A. Hass,1 R.S. Zalesny Jr.1, D. Patel2, J. Vandevender3

1 West Virginia State University; Agricultural & Environmental Research Station; Institute, WV 2 U.S. Forest Service; Northern Research Station; Rhinelander, WI

3 U.S. USDA NRCS Plant Material Center, Alderson, WV

Land Productivity

Picture by Dale K. Ritchey

Land Productivity

Land Productivity

Yield Gap (Actual [management])

Yield Ceiling (Potential [genetic])

Yield Gap (Actual [management])

Land Productivity

Objectives

6

Use phyto-recurrent selection to identify Populus genotypes that grow better on reclaimed mine sites.

Objectives

7

Use phyto-recurrent selection to identify Populus genotypes that grow better on reclaimed mine sites.

Test whether biochar can improve tree survival & growth on reclaim mine site.

Site Prep and Soil Treatment

8

Site Prep and Soil Treatment

9

Genomic Group Clone P. deltoides ‘D’ 8000105, C910809, D105, D109, D110, D112,

D117, D118, D121, D125, D133, D134

P. trichocarpa ‘T’ 0.20.3, 0.4.3, 0.6.3, 0.7.5, 1.1.5, 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 2.1.2, 3.2.2, 4.1.3, 5.2.2

P. deltoides × P. deltoides ‘DD’ 119.16

P. deltoides × P. nigra ‘DN’ DN154, DN164, DN17, DN170, DN177, DN182, DN34, DN5, DN70, NE264

P. deltoides × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘DM’

113.64, 412.52, 202.37, 313.23, 313.55, DM105, DM108, DM111, DM112, DM113, DM114, DM115, DM117, NC14103, NC14104, NC14105, NC14106, NC14107

P. nigra × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘NM’

NM2, NM6

(P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides) × P. deltoides ‘TDD’

NC13536, NC13555, NC13624, NC13728, NC13740, NC13820

Aigeiros Duby – P. deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh, P. nigra L. Tacamahaca Spach – P. suaveolens Fischer subsp. maximowiczii A. Henry, P. trichocarpa Torr. & Gray

Genomic Group Clone P. deltoides ‘D’ 8000105, C910809, D105, D109, D110, D112,

D117, D118, D121, D125, D133, D134

P. trichocarpa ‘T’ 0.20.3, 0.4.3, 0.6.3, 0.7.5, 1.1.5, 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 2.1.2, 3.2.2, 4.1.3, 5.2.2

P. deltoides × P. deltoides ‘DD’ 119.16

P. deltoides × P. nigra ‘DN’ DN154, DN164, DN17, DN170, DN177, DN182, DN34, DN5, DN70, NE264

P. deltoides × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘DM’

113.64, 412.52, 202.37, 313.23, 313.55, DM105, DM108, DM111, DM112, DM113, DM114, DM115, DM117, NC14103, NC14104, NC14105, NC14106, NC14107

P. nigra × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘NM’

NM2, NM6

(P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides) × P. deltoides ‘TDD’

NC13536, NC13555, NC13624, NC13728, NC13740, NC13820

Aigeiros Duby – P. deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh, P. nigra L. Tacamahaca Spach – P. suaveolens Fischer subsp. maximowiczii A. Henry, P. trichocarpa Torr. & Gray

CYCLE 1 • Field (2014) • Survival • Ht, Diam • Biomass • Health

CYCLE 2 • Field (2015) • Survival • Ht, Diam • Health

Cycle 1 Cycle 2

Rep 8 8

Soil treatment 2 0

Clone 60 32

DEPLOYMENT

CYCLE 1 • Field (2014) • Survival • Ht, Diam • Biomass • Health

CYCLE 2 • Field (2015) • Survival • Ht, Diam • Health

Cycle 1 Cycle 2

Rep 8 8

Soil treatment 2 0

Clone 60 32

DEPLOYMENT

IV = 0.3*MASS + 0.15*HEIGHT + 0.15*DIAMETER + 0.2*SURVIVAL + 0.2*HEALTH

Cycle 1 Probability Values

Source of variation Height Diameter Biomass Health Soil Amendment 0.4749 0.7067 0.9130 0.5402 Clone <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Soil Treatment × Clone 0.6148 0.4565 0.8831 0.2175 Soil Amendment 0.3755 0.5484 0.9823 0.6691 Genomic Group <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Soil Treatment × Genomic Group 0.4080 0.5404 0.2768 0.4137

Cycle 1; Year 1

Cycle 1; Year 1

6.2 x 6.0 x

5.4 x 4.5 x

Cycle 1; Year 2

Clone

NC13

740

1.3.1

8000

105

2.1.2

0.6.3

0.4.3

DM11

320

2.37

313.2

3DM

115

NM6

DM11

2

Hei

ght (

cm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Clone

8000

105

1.3.1

NC13

740

0.4.3

2.1.2

DN17

0NC

1410

5DM

113

DM11

5NM

620

2.37

DM11

2

Dia

met

er (m

m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

aa a a a a

b b b b b b

aa a

a aa

b bb b b b

IV = 0.3*MASS + 0.15*HEIGHT + 0.15*DIAMETER + 0.2*SURVIVAL + 0.2*HEALTH

IV = 0.3*MASS + 0.15*HEIGHT + 0.15*DIAMETER + 0.2*SURVIVAL + 0.2*HEALTH

Cycle 1 Probability Values Genomic Group Clone P. deltoides ‘D’ 8000105, C910809, D105, D109, D110, D112,

D117, D118, D121, D125, D133, D134

P. trichocarpa ‘T’ 0.20.3, 0.4.3, 0.6.3, 0.7.5, 1.1.5, 1.2.5, 1.3.1, 2.1.2, 3.2.2, 4.1.3, 5.2.2

P. deltoides × P. deltoides ‘DD’ 119.16

P. deltoides × P. nigra ‘DN’ DN154, DN164, DN17, DN170, DN177, DN182, DN34, DN5, DN70, NE264

P. deltoides × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘DM’

113.64, 412.52, 202.37, 313.23, 313.55, DM105, DM108, DM111, DM112, DM113, DM114, DM115, DM117, NC14103, NC14104, NC14105, NC14106, NC14107

P. nigra × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘NM’

NM2, NM6

(P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides) × P. deltoides ‘TDD’

NC13536, NC13555, NC13624, NC13728, NC13740, NC13820

Cycle 2 Probability Values Source of variation Height Diameter Health Clone 0.0051 0.0098 0.3926 Genomic Group 0.0007 0.0015 0.0049

Cycle 2

Genomic Group

D DM DN NM TDD

Hei

ght (

cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Genomic Group

D DM DN NM TDD

Dia

met

er (m

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5A) B)

a

c

a

bb

ab

c

ab

b

a

Cycle 2

Genomic Group

D DM DN NM TDD

Hei

ght (

cm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Genomic Group

D DM DN NM TDD

Dia

met

er (m

m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5A) B)

a

c

a

bb

ab

c

ab

b

a

Conclusions

24

SOIL AMENDMENT PRACTICES Biochar treatment DID NOT significantly increase tree

survival & growth relative to standard soil ripping techniques without amendments

PLANT SELECTION Phyto-recurrent selection is a viable tool for selecting

superior genotypes P. nigra × P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii ‘NM’

performances were superior to all other genomic groups

Funding

25

Renewable Energy Applications on Surface-Mined Lands Program Administered by: West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center at Marshall University A Program of: Marshall University’s Center for Environmental, Geotechnical & Applied Sciences (CEGAS) Funded by & Under Direction of: West Virginia Division of Energy Office of Coalfield Community Development & Appalachian Regional Commission

Biochar pH EC Ash

Content P S C N O C/N Ratio (mS/cm) ----------------------------- % weight -----------------------------

Alfalfa 12 11.2 28.5 0.85 0.14 57 1.54 23 37

Miscanthus 8.3 7.08 27.3 1.22 0.19 54 1.04 25 52

Poplar 9.2 0.72 26.2 - - 61 0.67 22 91

Sorghum 10 4.32 35.5 0.48 0.19 50 0.61 26 82

Yellow Pine 10 9.59 - - - 75 0.32 20 238

Soil Treatment - Biochar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350m

g C

O2-

C k

g So

il-1 d

-1

Biochar Feedstock

Soil Treatment - Biochar

CO2 Release From Biochar Amended Soil – Feedstock Effect

Soil Treatment - Biochar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350m

g C

O2-

C k

g So

il-1 d

-1

Biochar Feedstock

R² = 0.9521

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6Biochar Nitrogen Content (%)

CO2 Release From Biochar Amended Soil – Char TN Content

Soil Treatment - Biochar

Biochar Amended Soil – Foxtail Millet Growth Response

Soil Treatment - Biochar

Biochar Amended Soil – Foxtail Millet Growth Response

Plan

t bio

mas

s (g

pot

-1)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 100 200 300 400 500

1st cut

2nd cut

3rd cut

First crop Total Biomass

13065

‘Nutrients’ Treatments

‘Nutrients x2’ Treatments

Total N addition to soil by fertilizer or biochar amendments (mg kg-1)

5% BiocharGTreatments

2% BiocharGTreatments

5% BiocharG- Granite fine mixTreatments

440176148

1st harvest

2st harvest

3st harvest

Total biomass y = 0.0116x + 2.5352R² = 0.9495

USDA 2015. 2012 National Resources Inventory